01/28/2010 03:00 PM House ENERGY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation by Robert Pickett, Chairman of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska: Net Metering Regulations Review and Proposed Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Project Update | |
| HB306 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
January 28, 2010
3:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative Charisse Millett, Co-Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Pete Petersen
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION BY ROBERT PICKETT, CHAIRMAN OF THE REGULATORY
COMMISSION OF ALASKA: NET METERING REGULATIONS REVIEW AND
PROPOSED COOK INLET NATURAL GAS STORAGE PROJECT UPDATE.
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 306
"An Act declaring a state energy policy."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 306
SHORT TITLE: STATE ENERGY POLICY
SPONSOR(s): ENERGY
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) ENE, RES
01/26/10 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
01/26/10 (H) Heard & Held
01/26/10 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
01/28/10 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ROBERT M. PICKETT, Chairman
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA)
Office of the Governor
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a report titled "RCA Net Metering
Regulations; Cook Inlet Gas Storage.
ROBERT VENABLES, Energy Coordinator
Southeast Conference
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 306.
JERRY MCCUTCHEON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 306.
DAVID LEVY, Member
Alaska Mobility Coalition
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 306.
CHRIS ROSE, Executive Director
Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 306.
BILL POPP, President and CEO
Anchorage Economic Development Corporation (AEDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 306.
CAITLIN HIGGINS, Executive Director
Alaska Conservation Alliance
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 306.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:07:07 PM
CO-CHAIR BRYCE EDGMON called the House Special Committee on
Energy meeting to order at 3:07 p.m. Representatives Ramras,
Petersen, Tuck, Dahlstrom, Millett, and Edgmon were present at
the call to order. Representative Johansen arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
3:07:24 PM
^Presentation by Robert Pickett, Chairman of the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska: Net Metering Regulations Review and
Proposed Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Project Update
Presentation by Robert Pickett, Chairman of the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska: Net Metering Regulations Review and
Proposed Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Project Update
3:07:24 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON announced that the first order of business would
be a "listen-only" presentation by Robert M. Pickett, Chairman
of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA).
3:07:57 PM
ROBERT M. PICKETT, Chairman, Regulatory Commission of Alaska
(RCA), said he was asked to address two specific areas: (1)
Recently adopted RCA net metering regulations; (2) Cook Inlet
storage issues and a request for legislative assistance. As
background information, he reminded the committee that the
federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) contained a series of
energy standards that each state regulatory commission was
mandated to consider for adoption. Net metering was one of the
five proposed federal standards to be considered for adoption by
each state. The commission opened a regulations docket and held
a series of technical workshops and public meetings on this
subject; however, the RCA declined to adopt the federal net
metering standard because it believed the standard was confining
and of a "rather undefined nature that had some concerns for
Alaska advocates and ratepayers." In response to the intense
interest in net metering, the RCA opened Docket R-09-1, in
February 2009, to consider regulations implementing an Alaska-
specific net metering standard. Mr. Pickett explained that the
RCA engineering staff and financial analyst staff created a
"straw man proposal" designed to generate comments on elements
of a net metering requirement.
MR. PICKETT recalled the RCA held a technical workshop on March
4, 2009, to discuss the net metering proposal and on June 12,
2009, proposed net metering regulations were issued for public
comment. Forty-five comments were received, some of which were
initial and reply comments.
[The committee meeting was interrupted by a power outage at 3:10
p.m.]
CO-CHAIR EDGMON called the meeting back to order at 3:48 p.m.
3:48:29 PM
MR. PICKETT relayed the RCA reviewed the public comments, made
revisions, and voted to adopt net metering regulations at its
October 14, 2009, public meeting. He acknowledged that "the
advocates thought we should have gone a little bit further;
utilities thought we probably went too far." The commission
must balance the fundamental issues of equity; in truth, this
regulation is a technical violation of the regulatory principle
called "cost-cause or cost-payer." But in fact, this violation
happens for other reasons, too. For example, if a utility
covers a wide range of urban and rural areas, the argument can
be made that a "postage stamp" rate also violates cost-cause or
cost-payer. Therefore, this was a minor concern and the RCA was
comfortable with the regulations that were adopted. He
continued to explain that net metering allows the consumer to
reduce his/her load requirement by interconnecting on-site
generation facilities to electric utility facilities. The
amount of the customer-generated power is compared to the
customer's electric consumption for the billing period, and the
customer either is billed for net consumption, or credited for
excess generation over consumption. He offered to make these
citations and regulations available as soon as they are approved
by the lieutenant governor. Electric utilities subject to the
net metering regulations are the economically regulated
utilities, except for the following two exemptions: a utility
that generates 100 percent of its power from an eligible
facility; and economically regulated utilities with annual
retail sales under 5,000,000 kilowatts per hour (kWh). Thus,
this does not apply to the small, rural utilities such as those
represented by the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC),
and the Alaska Power Association (APA); however, small utilities
can participate in net metering on a voluntary basis.
3:51:42 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON asked whether the RCA regulations would still be
in place if the proposed net metering bills became law.
3:51:55 PM
MR. PICKETT said "statute trumps regulation, and so if there was
a conflict with some of the provisions ... we would have to ...
revise these and go through the process that's necessary." He
understood that one of the proposed bills reflects the
provisions of these regulations. In further response to Co-
Chair Edgmon, he confirmed that the regulations are waiting for
approval from the lieutenant governor and the process "should be
relatively quick."
3:52:45 PM
MR. PICKETT, returning to his presentation, said that a utility
may limit net metering installations by showing system technical
constraints, or other operations issues, as there is no
intention to destabilize electric utilities. Furthermore, the
utility may refuse net metering if the capacity of participating
net metering systems exceeds 1.5 percent of the utility's
average retail demand; however, the utility can request an
increase in the 1.5 percent capacity limit. There is also a 25
kilowatt limit on an individual consumer-generation facility.
Mr. Pickett identified the following permissible energy
generation sources: solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind,
biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, hydrokinetic, ocean thermal,
landfill gas or biomass gas produced from organic matter,
wastewater, anaerobic digesters or municipal solid waste, and
other similar sources as approved by the RCA. Turning to
compensation for excess generation, he said that the kilowatt
per hour bill is based on the utility's non-firm purchase power
rate-typically on an avoided cost basis-and noted that carry-
forward kWh credits do not expire.
3:54:08 PM
MR. PICKETT stated that another issue stems from the 2005 EPAct
changes to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA): interconnection standards. The RCA has another docket
underway to develop Alaska-specific interconnection standards;
this docket should be completed in the spring and he anticipated
that it will be based on the Interconnecting Distributed
Resources With Electric Power Systems (IEEE 1547)
interconnection standards for distributed generation. He
acknowledged that there are still questions about revisions and
another technical workshop may be necessary for this docket. It
is important for sponsors of large scale renewable projects to
understand that the RCA is responsible for ensuring that larger
utilities are on a sound operational basis; in fact, larger
utilities have interconnection standards in place that can
frustrate renewable project sponsors. The utilities focus will
be on the protection of their ratepayers and system, but the
sponsors of renewable projects may interpret the standards to be
a form of "stonewalling."
3:56:45 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT asked for examples of why the RCA did not adopt
the proposed federal net metering standards.
3:57:28 PM
MR. PICKETT responded that the RCA looked at the "system caps"
and felt it could not take the arbitrary number given by the
federal regulations. Alaska utilities were also concerned about
this number. In addition, there was an issue about compensation
and whether compensation would be the full retail rate or an
avoided cost rate; obviously, investors want to be compensated
at the full retail rate, but utilities "are going to come down
on the other side." There were also other issues, such as the
interconnection standards, that could not be reviewed in the
given time period.
3:58:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN surmised that someone who built a
renewable electric generation facility with excess power would
get credits, not a check, and those credits would never expire.
3:59:33 PM
MR. PICKETT said yes.
3:59:36 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON asked whether the 1.5 percentage limit on
participating net metering systems was "in a collective sense."
4:00:07 PM
MR. PICKETT confirmed that the percentage is an aggregate
figure; for example, if 25 self-generating systems came online
and the combined number exceeded 1.5 percent of the average
annual demand, the utility would not have to accept new net
metering customers.
4:00:32 PM
MR. PICKETT, in further response to Co-Chair Edgmon, observed
that this percentage could be raised, but this number was agreed
to by the parties.
4:00:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK called attention back to the two exemptions
to net metering provisions shown on slide 8. He asked for
examples of facilities that meet the first exception.
4:01:18 PM
MR. PICKETT referred to regulation 3 AAC 50.949(9) and clarified
that if the utility is already getting 100 percent from, for
example, hydro generation, a net metering customer cannot "come
in and say, 'Hook me up and pay me.'"
4:02:07 PM
MR. PICKETT turned to the second subject of his presentation:
Cook Inlet Gas Storage. As most legislators are aware, natural
gas deliverability is a huge issue in Southcentral Alaska and
the RCA recognizes that third-party gas storage is one key
strategy to address this issue. Essentially, gas injected into
storage during the warmer summer months would help meet the
"swing" in the amount of gas needed during the winter.
Remarkably, the difference between the amount of gas supply
needed on a July day and a December or January day can be a
factor of ten. In the past, the gas fields were more robust and
the field pressures were higher; as the pressure drops it is to
the point where that is not enough. He opined that gas storage
is the missing piece; in fact, ENSTAR has demonstrated that
without the ConocoPhillips Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plant in
Kenai, the margin is gone. Conditions of seven to ten days of
25 below (Fahrenheit) temperatures would severely stress or
damage the system. Mr. Pickett informed the committee that ANR
Pipeline Company, a subsidiary of TransCanada, created Cook
Inlet Natural Gas Storage, LLC (CINGS). This company proposes
to develop, construct, own, operate, and manage an independent,
third-party natural gas storage facility in a depleted natural
gas reservoir in the Cannery Loop Unit near Kenai. This
proposal would allow customers to store gas during low
consumption periods and withdraw that gas during peak periods.
The facility would include five injection/withdrawal wells,
pressure regulators, separation and conditioning equipment,
heating elements, and measuring equipment. Although the RCA has
never dealt with storage in a docketed format, it sponsored a
workshop in December to begin to explore gas storage issues and
met some success with gas supply agreements. On December 21,
2009, CINGS filed a "Petition for Declaratory Judgment Regarding
the Regulatory Commission of Alaska's Jurisdiction Over the
Natural Gas Storage Project Proposed by Cook Inlet Natural Gas
Storage LLC" with the RCA.
4:06:41 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT questioned whether there is anything in the RCA
regulatory framework regarding gas storage in Alaska.
4:07:00 PM
MR. PICKETT said no. Similarly, the Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission (AOGCC) does not have the "regulatory
piece" in place to issue orders on the wells, or to verify the
integrity of the reservoirs. Returning to the CINGS petition,
he explained that CINGS respectfully requested a declaratory
ruling on the threshold issue of the commission's jurisdiction
in order to determine how to best move forward in the most
expeditious manner. The two concerns presented by CINGS in the
petition were: (1) CINGS did not want to presume that it was
unregulated only to find out later that it needs to apply for a
certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN); (2)
CINGS did not want to apply for a CPCN only to have it dismissed
because of the lack of RCA jurisdiction. He relayed the
timeline of the following actions: December 21, 2009, CINGS
files petition; December 24, 2009, RCA opens Dockets U-09-124/P-
09-016; December 31, 2009, CINGS is ordered to file concise
statement of material facts; January 8, 2010, close of public
comment period; January 15, 2010, legal briefings were due. The
RCA was asked to issue its determination on January 23, 2010.
4:08:59 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT asked for a summary of the public comment.
4:09:15 PM
MR. PICKETT said that comments received from the utilities were
mostly in favor of regulation, and those from the producers and
CINGS were against regulation. Furthermore, there were comments
from property owners who were suspicious that a project was
being "sneaked" through without public process. After receiving
the legal briefings, the RCA issued its decision on January 28,
2009. In essence, the decision said the statute is totally
unclear; in fact, there was even disagreement on the meaning of
the statute between the commissioners. Mr. Pickett opined that,
when pertaining to issues of statutory interpretation, the
Alaska Supreme Court and the Alaska Superior Court do not give
deference to the RCA. The courts leave an uncertainty
regardless of whether the RCA makes a definitive declaratory
judgment on its jurisdiction. He remarked:
I guess my plea to the legislature is this is one of
those times where statutory clarity is absolutely
necessary I tend to be a little bit of a strict
constructionist when I read statutes, I want to see it
and understand that that was the legislative intent.
To reach and stretch is a bit much ... we do have
broad powers, in terms of the public interest, to
protect the public, and there may be times where it's
necessary for the commission to exercise those. But
... when you talk about massive investment, and you're
asking the utilities to engage in 20-year contracts,
to provide some kind of certainty for this project ...
I don't think that this is the time or the place to
have statutory ambiguity.
4:12:57 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT asked whether there was any concern by
ratepayers about the cost of storage being added to utility
bills.
4:13:17 PM
MR. PICKETT related that one individual expressed concern about
a conspiracy between the RCA, the producers, and the utilities.
He pointed out that clarity is critical to the public
perception, also.
4:14:16 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT observed that the RCA wants clarity on
statutory authority, but has no opinion.
4:14:34 PM
MR. PICKETT advised that the RCA is the creation of the
legislature. His personal opinion is that when the RCA creates
a monopolistic situation, there will not be room for new
players. In addition to the utilities that are the base
players, there should be room for small producers, as in a spot
market, for different types of contracts. The producers need
the assurance of longer contracts, but by the same token, others
need incentives. He then asked, "If you put the RCA in the
position of saying 'it's unregulated' ... but, at the end of the
day the state is somehow going to put money into it in the form
of tax credits, ... and then we're supposed to ensure that the
benefits of those credits flow to the ratepayers ... now how
would that work?" The cost elements of storage are simple;
however, the producers will protect their own storage. Indeed,
one of the legal briefs from a producer noted that if the RCA
asserts jurisdiction, this jurisdiction must be clearly defined
and not the equivalent of "a camel's nose under the tent."
4:17:22 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT asked whether other states are regulated or
unregulated on third-party gas storage.
4:17:38 PM
MR. PICKETT answered that natural gas and gas storage were
heavily regulated. At this time, in the Lower 48, there is
jurisdiction over in-state storage, but as gas moves between
states it is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC).
4:18:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked whether a subsidy was being
contemplated.
4:18:13 PM
MR. PICKETT said he considered tax credits to be a form of
subsidy to encourage development and to benefit ratepayers.
4:18:58 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON assumed the RCA will not get the clarity the
commission needs if the proposed legislation does not pass. He
asked what the RCA action would be.
4:19:09 PM
MR. PICKETT explained that the RCA is a reactive agency. Like a
utility, CINGS will make a filing, depending on its business
plan. The RCA might have the three votes needed to assert
jurisdiction, but if the statutes remain unclear, the legal
issue remains.
4:20:11 PM
HB 306-STATE ENERGY POLICY
CO-CHAIR EDGMON announced that the final order of business would
be to hear public testimony on HOUSE BILL NO. 306, "An Act
declaring a state energy policy."
4:20:58 PM
ROBERT VENABLES, Energy Coordinator, Southeast Conference,
informed the committee that Southeast Conference is a regional
development organization. Its mission is to encourage
activities and promote strong economies, healthy communities,
and a quality environment in Southeast Alaska. Mr. Venables
shared that, for the last 12 years, his organization has been
working to develop the energy policies and projects that will
lead to the displacement of diesel as the primary fuel for the
generation of electricity in Southeast communities. He stated
that Southeast Conference supports HB 306; in fact it was a
member of the stakeholders group during the interim. He opined
HB 306 leads the way for state investment in energy projects,
economic development, and renewable energy projects in rural
areas. Mr. Venables stated his organization's intent to
participate with the state in on-going projects, both for the
generation and the transmission of energy, and he cited the need
for a higher level of planning to direct Southeast investments.
He offered to lend Southeast Conference members and utilities in
support of the bill.
4:23:30 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON thanked Southeast Conference for its
contributions to the plan.
4:24:53 PM
JERRY MCCUTCHEON informed the committee he would send written
comments to the legislature. He opined that HB 306 was "not
much" and did not do anything. The state must address that
which is doable, and not get tied up in illusions about what is
not doable; for example, pursuing a gas line when the Lower 48
and western Canada is awash in gas. He relayed a short history
of the gas line project.
4:27:04 PM
DAVID LEVY stated that the Alaska Mobility Coalition represents
and advocates for public and community transportation statewide.
It has 76 members from Bethel to Prince of Wales Island, and its
members represent public and community transportation systems
that provide over 7,000,000 rides annually. Mr. Levy thanked
the committee for its work and pointed out that the role of
public transportation, and the energy savings and support for
employment it provides, should be part of the discussion
regarding energy. He informed the committee that the senate has
included public transportation in its bill, and he encouraged
the House Special Committee on Energy to do so. He expressed
support for the amendment offered by Representative Petersen to
include public transportation as part of the overall dialog.
4:29:26 PM
CHRIS ROSE, Executive Director, Renewable Energy Alaska Project
(REAP), said that he participated with the stakeholders group
that worked on the proposed legislation. Today, however, he is
representing REAP in support of the bill. A state energy policy
is necessary to set the broad framework on how the state makes
its energy decisions. Although there are plenty of energy
programs and projects in place around the state, there needs to
be a policy to provide a framework and a long-term vision. He
opined the language of the bill looks at the influence on the
state from around the world, such as the increasing price of
fossil fuels, and the growth of the clean energy industry. Mr.
Rose stressed that the emphasis on energy efficiency in the bill
is very important and makes economic sense. His organization
also supports the emphasis on renewable energy. Upon review of
the bill by the REAP policy committee, the policy committee felt
that REAP should be neutral on parts of the bill that do not
support its mission- increasing the production of renewable
energy and promoting energy efficiency-but other parts such as
workforce development, education campaigns, and the streamlining
of governmental functions, pertain to REAP's mission statement.
4:33:08 PM
BILL POPP, President and CEO, Anchorage Economic Development
Corporation (AEDC), said that he was a member of the
stakeholders group and thanked all of those who contributed to
the formation of the bill. He agreed with Mr. Rose, and added
that it is vital for the state to bring forward an energy policy
that addresses the basis on energy for the state in the coming
decade. Without such a policy, the state will "clunk along"
with some successful individual projects that may not be in line
with a broader vision and a set of goals. He expressed his
concern that without a basis for the process, decisions are made
about the allocation of resources that may not fit the state's
longer term goals, whether for renewable or nonrenewable
projects. In the past, Alaska has faced challenges in choosing
projects that should go forward, and others that should not.
Mr. Popp opined that this policy recognizes that, although
renewable energy is a part of our future and will make a
difference especially in rural areas, the state economy is based
on non-renewable resource extraction and will be for many
decades. He strongly urged the passage of HB 306.
4:36:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether Mr. Popp supports the
workforce development portion of the bill.
4:36:31 PM
MR. POPP confirmed that a strong vital workforce is necessary to
support the building, operation, and maintenance of energy
infrastructure of all types. In addition, a good, well-thought-
out investment in energy infrastructure workforce training is
very important and the policy is a first step toward gaining
that investment.
4:36:57 PM
CAITLIN HIGGINS, Executive Director, Alaska Conservation
Alliance, stated that the Alaska Conservation Alliance and its
40 member organizations, representing 38,000 Alaskans, wishes to
applaud the committee on its strong leadership and hard work on
these issues. The committee's commitment to the creation of an
overarching policy to guide related energy decisions is
encouraging. As a member of the stakeholder group, Ms. Higgins
thanked the co-chairs for the opportunity to participate in the
process, and the other members for their contributions. The
proposed legislation will put Alaska on an economically stable
and sustainable path to the future that is supported by the
conservation community. The alliance strongly supports the
provisions in the bill that focus on energy efficiency first,
and it encourages the establishment of statewide energy
efficiency codes, decreased energy use in public buildings
through efficiency, and the education of the public on energy
efficiency. In fact, this support is so strong that the
alliance commissioned a report that shows how the Railbelt can
reach a goal for energy efficiency-perhaps as high as 50
percent-by 2025. The Railbelt Electricity Efficiency Landscape
(REEL In Alaska roadmap) results will be issued soon and will
support efforts to set aggressive energy efficiency goals that
encourage the state and its citizens, businesses, and industry
to strive to be as energy efficient as possible. Ms. Higgins
recalled that everyone in the stakeholders group and the
committee share an interest in promoting and incentivizing
energy efficiency so that Alaska can benefit from this clean,
cheap, and simple way to meet its energy needs. Although the
alliance supports the inclusion of goals for energy efficiency
in the proposed policy, it encouraged the committee to place
these goals in codified language. She opined placing all of
these goals in codified statute will increase the likelihood
that the goals will be met. The alliance also supports the
inclusion of provisions encouraging renewable energy
development, because such development will help the state secure
its energy future. Lastly, the alliance supports the provisions
encouraging training and research, emerging technology research
and development in the field of renewable energy, and the
coordination of state entities focused on energy. On behalf of
the Alaska Conservation Alliance, she encouraged the passage of
HB 306 during 2010.
4:42:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN observed that the Alaska Conservation
Alliance has a membership of 40 groups. He asked which members
were based in Southeast.
4:43:14 PM
MS. HIGGINS said those groups would include the Sitka
Conservation Society, Lynn Canal Conservation, the Southeast
Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC), and others. In further
response to Representative Johansen, she said the Tongass
Conservation Society is no longer a member.
4:43:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN agreed with Ms. Higgins' support of HB
306. He advised that to achieve goals that the alliance, and
he, support such as the 50 percent [of electric generation from
renewable energy sources by 2025], choices have to be made. For
example, during construction of the intertie between Wrangell
and Ketchikan, the price was accelerated by litigation brought
by groups like SEACC. He remarked:
I'm hoping that your organizations, at some point, are
going to make a choice between litigating access
corridors, because you have to cut down a renewable
tree, versus cheap and affordable energy. And I hope
that conversation is going on within your groups ...
But it's a real challenge to transmission, and I hope
we all understand that that's going to be a question
that's going to come up. At what point do you make a
choice between cheap and renewable energy and allowing
the corridors to go through?
4:45:30 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON closed public testimony.
4:46:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 306.
CO-CHAIR EDGMON objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:47:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that the intent of the amendment is
to ensure that workforce development is a priority. The
amendment read:
Page 3, line 2, following "programs":
Insert "that will help create jobs for
Alaskans and"
4:47:45 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON removed his objection. Hearing no further
objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
4:48:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN moved Amendment 1.
4:48:17 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON objected for purposes of discussion.
4:48:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN informed the committee that this
amendment adds a new subparagraph which read:
Page 2, following line 18:
Insert a new subparagraph to read:
"(D) encouraging
the use of public
transportation and
assisting communities in
developing public transportation
options in an effort to decrease
fuel usage by motor vehicles."
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN added that this amendment would also
reduce wear and tear on highways.
4:49:01 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT recalled previous discussion in the
stakeholders group on this issue. Because the proposed
legislation is statewide policy, participants did not feel it
was appropriate as public transportation is not relevant to
rural communities. She expressed her opposition to Amendment 1.
4:50:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM surmised that "assisting communities"
would obligate the state to fund assistance.
4:5:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN relayed that in other states public
transportation usually needs a public subsidy until it turns a
profit; for example, in New Mexico the state built a commuter
rail. Public transportation has also been successful in Seattle
and Portland. He pointed out that the proposed policy is a
long-term view of the future and a comprehensive-type of bill,
and encouraged the inclusion of the amendment.
4:52:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM stated that because HB 306 is
comprehensive and statewide, she was reluctant to "give the
perception that we are interested in developing ... public
transportation statewide." She expressed her opposition to
Amendment 1.
4:52:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN commented that the Alaska Marine Highway
System (AMHS) is subsidized by the state budget every year and
is a form of public transportation.
4:53:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN pointed out that the AMHS is the only
transportation system with a fare box; on the other hand, every
road in Alaska is completely subsidized.
4:53:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS recalled remarks he heard by rural
legislators about inequities and the lack of parity in the
governor's proposed scholarship program; in truth, the lack of
parity between rural and urban regions of the state can be
offensive. He said:
I think [the amendment's] inclusion, frankly even a
vote on amendment 1, incurs the same offense by not
recognizing some of the limitations that we have in
rural Alaska.
4:55:11 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON stated his understanding from the stakeholders
group discussions that the policy must be general, statewide,
and uniform in application. He suggested that the amendment is
more appropriate to a plan of action rather than to the
overarching policy.
4:56:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed that mass transportation can conserve
energy, as the policy seeks to do; however, the committee does
not want to isolate rural Alaskans, but to provide energy
opportunities for them as well, and he agreed that the
amendment would benefit urban areas.
4:57:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN withdrew amendment 1.
4:58:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN moved Amendment 2 which read:
Page 1, line 13, following "projects":
Insert ";
(5) the state remain a leader in
petroleum and natural gas production and become a
leader in renewable energy development;
(6) consumer fuel and electricity
prices in the state be comparable to those prices in
other leading energy producing regions"
CO-CHAIR EDGMON objected for purposes of discussion.
4:58:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS offered an amendment to Amendment 2, which
was the deletion of lines 5 and 6.
4:59:21 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON confirmed that the amendment removed item (6) of
Amendment 2.
4:59:53 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT supported lines 3 and 4 of Amendment 2.
5:00:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN objected to the amendment to Amendment
2, and stated his support of the amendment to Amendment 2.
5:00:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that the purpose of item (6) is to
ensure that the state, with renewable projects, is not "going
backwards in energy savings and cost due the ratepayers, in
exchange of trying to hit some of our targets." As the state
moves to reach its renewable goals, it must not be at the cost
of ratepayers along the way.
5:01:17 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON re-stated the efforts of the stakeholders group
to not incorporate statements of subjectivity. He opined lines
5 and 6 of Amendment 2 have an element of interpretation that is
not in alignment with the spirit of the legislation. He
indicated his support for the amendment to Amendment 2.
5:02:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN removed his objection to the amendment
to Amendment 2.
5:02:19 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON announced that the amendment to Amendment 2 is
adopted.
5:02:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS concluded that the maker of Amendment 2,
as amended, has captured the intent of much of HB 306.
5:03:38 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON removed his objection. Hearing no further
objection, Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted.
5:04:16 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT moved Amendment 4.
5:04:21 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON objected for purposes of discussion.
5:04:22 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT explained Amendment 4 is a technical amendment
to page 3, line 10, deleting "review" and inserting
"regulation".
5:04:48 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON removed his objection. Hearing no further
objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
5:05:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he is working on an amendment.
5:05:45 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON announced HB 306 was held in committee.
5:06:19 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Energy meeting was adjourned at 5:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 306 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HENE 1/26/2010 3:00:00 PM HENE 1/28/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 306 |
| Energy Policy for Alaska Presentation 01 26 10.pdf |
HENE 1/26/2010 3:00:00 PM HENE 1/28/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 306 |
| Energy Committee Agenda 01282010.pdf |
HENE 1/28/2010 3:00:00 PM |
|
| House Special Energy_01_28_10 RCA.pdf |
HENE 1/28/2010 3:00:00 PM |
|
| Amendments for HB306.pdf |
HENE 1/28/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 306 |
| Am #3 - HB306.pdf |
HENE 1/28/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 306 |